Education officials warn that Nevada schools will continue to suffer without new funding sources

The state’s commission on school funding is preparing an updated recommendation to bring Nevada’s education funding up to the national average — work that lawmakers have chipped away at but are still far from achieving, especially after nearly static funding levels the past two years.

Nevada schools were buoyed in 2023 by a historic funding boost of more than $2 billion, bringing base funding up by about $2,300 per pupil over the biennium. But the momentum didn’t continue in 2025, when lawmakers passed funding that increased the base per-pupil allocation by $2 one year and $70 the next — less than the rate of inflation.

“That lack of funding really has caused a lot of fiscal stress among all school districts,” commission member Mark Mathers, who is also Washoe County School District’s CFO, said at a June 12 meeting.

The commission makes recommendations in advance of every biennial legislative session to guide Nevada legislators. Before the 2023 infusion, Nevada needed to invest between about $220 million and $340 million a year over 10 years to reach parity with the national average, officials said. Now, heading into the fourth fiscal year since that infusion, the state is still facing a gap of $190 million per year through 2037 to get to the national average.

“Which is not a dramatic change from what we were looking at a couple of years ago,” said Guy Hobbs, the commission’s chair and a former chief financial officer for Clark County. “It’s a little bit lower than what we were looking at a couple of years ago, but it still is a challenging value.”

The commission said the state needs to shoot for a per-pupil investment of $16,043 in 2027-28. By 2037, it estimates, Nevada’s per-pupil funding needs to be $23,191 to get to the national middle. The commission will meet again this month to continue work on a full plan for how to get there.

But Mathers could say this much: A new funding stream is necessary for Nevada to reach its goal.

After the Clark County School District announced last month that it would consider dozens of teachers and support staffers for a reduction in force, the National Education Association of Southern Nevada didn’t just criticize CCSD administration. The teachers union, one of two in the district, said the scare that ultimately left six teachers without positions was bigger than CCSD.

“While district leaders must be accountable for the decisions that contributed to this situation, Nevada cannot continue to underfund public education and then act surprised when educators and students are forced to absorb the consequences,” the education association said at the time. “Carson City has a responsibility to fix the funding failures that leave school districts with little margin for error and educators paying the price when things go wrong.”

Districts are cutting costs as enrollment falls around the state. Clark County recently trimmed jobs, and its pending facility use master plan contemplates the possibility of school closures and reconfigurations. Though only one local school has closed within the past eight years — rural Goodsprings Elementary, which shuttered in May after enrollment dwindled to two students — other districts are already closing and consolidating.

In Douglas County, the district just closed one elementary school, tentatively plans to close another in 2028 and has moved to sell district real estate to address a $5.4 million deficit. Elko County, faced with a $15 million shortfall, is reducing teaching and central office staff, cutting substitute pay, pausing the adoption of new textbooks, not purchasing new Chromebook computers for students next year and is converting its intermediate school to a sixth-grade-only campus. White Pine County is leaving positions unfilled and has dipped into its rainy day fund.

Commissioner: Public pressure needed

For the 2023-24 school year, Nevada’s typical per-pupil allocation from the state was $14,247. In the coming school year, it will be $15,362.

School funding commission consultant Jeremy Aguero acknowledged that Nevada has a long road before reaching the national average, but he heaped praise on state leaders.

“The fact that we’re talking about catching up to the national average has a lot to do with the work of this commission, our governor and our Legislature that had the wisdom and courage to find a way to find the dollars to fund our schools a little higher than they were before,” including the “huge step” in 2023, he told the group.

Mathers said the $2 billion surge was due to changes to the law in 2019. That’s when the Pupil-Centered Funding Plan passed, overhauling how Nevada funds its public schools. For 50 years, Nevada allocated money to school districts using a flat average. Now, it funds each student with a base amount, then adds weights depending on whether a student is an English-language learner, gifted or at risk of dropping out. The money is held in a special fund, ensuring the dollars stay with districts and don’t revert to the state general fund.

“We need to make sure people understand there was no heroic action here of folks to necessarily identify a new funding source or carve more money out of the general fund to support K-12. It was following the concepts and the law,” he said.

Commission member Punam Mathur said the body was recommending a 4.4% increase next year — a relatively modest amount.

“That’s less than bananas have gone up,” she said. “That’s less than any other bill in our household has gone up.”

Nevada had good economic luck immediately postpandemic, collecting more sales tax revenues than expected, Mathur said. Now it’s time for the public to demand that lawmakers go above and beyond for education.

“I don’t know that political will for these things is going to be found easily,” she added. “Unless we can build an awareness and a desire in the ‘We-the-people’ public, we may be here 15 years from now looking at the 10-year plan, which would be quite sad.”

The current law says funding “should, to the extent practicable,” keep pace with inflation, but doesn’t require it. That should be the bare minimum, Mathers said.

“Until the state does identify new funding sources or increases to raise the bar for school district funding, we should push the state to at least provide for inflationary increases to our per pupil amount versus $2 per student,” he said.